This is a huge case that will reverberate for decades- probably the most important case of the term.

J.S.

It's an interesting but ultimately irrelevant distinction. Who really cares if the threat is malevolent--if there's some evil bad guy sitting in a cave rubbing his hands in ecstasy at our demise? A threat's a threat. Here, we have one! Deal with it.

Mention of Woolsey, an advocate of Saddam Hussein's overthrow from way back, will bring the bats out here. Before that happens I'd like to point out that real steps to reduce energy use and thereby greenhouse gas emissions -- as opposed to symbolic steps to make ourselves feel better -- require changes in the tax code, not regulation, let alone regulation by state governments.

Energy will be used profligately as long as energy is cheap. Cheap energy in a global market will inevitably lead to a market correction. Once that correction is made we will not see cheap energy again for a long, long time. We can enjoy cheap energy now -- while we wring our hands about global warming and oil subsidies to terrorists -- or we can make energy less cheap now. The appropriate policy tool for this is taxation, not regulation and not subsidy.

This is the sort of case that most worries me about Alito. I think he'll come down on the side of "corporation rights" -- and not recognize any constitutional protection for peoples' breathing or future health rights......

Doesn't the Federalist Society feel that any government regulatory agency (OSHA, EPA, FDA, etc.) is basically illegal?

The case is irrelevant. If the court decides that the EPA can regulate, and the agency does try to regulate at some point, the Congress will rewrite the law to take away the power to do so.

However, we won't even have to go down that path. The court is certain to decide that Congress will have to explicitly include carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which, of course, it will promptly refuse to do.

At least Woolsey has solar panels on the roof of his house and drives a hybrid.

Woolsey is a war profiteer. You should have punched him in the face.

Of course it is, because it will lead to climate shifts that will lead to famine and migrations, historically a major cause of instability. It will alter economic patterns, making some poor areas richer and vice versa. It will lead to fights over scarce resources, such as water. Anything with the potential to create so much instability has to be considered a security threat.

On the case itself, the best thing would be for the Court to say that the Feds can, but are not required to, regulate carbon emissions and the states may adopt stricter standards. CA and the other forward-looking states can put their new regulations into effect and we will have at least some results before a Dem becomes President and appoints Gore head of the EPA and we really get cracking on the problem.

James Woolsey is both a malignant and malevolent threat to US democracy and world peace.

Woolsey is a war profiteer.

The example of centrism at its finest.

...CA and the other forward-looking states can put their new regulations into effect and we will have at least some results before a Dem becomes President and appoints Gore head of the EPA and we really get cracking on the problem.
Posted by: Mimikatz on November 29, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

No. We've lost this battle. Behold, as the Bush Supreme Court strikes down any attempt to reign in corporate behavior no matter who we elect for the next 50 years.

This issue of trying to defining what is a "pollutant" is a particularly pernicious one in giving the other side ammunition to block any attempts to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Bush campagned in 2000 on the moronic line that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant." I still hear that line regularly - most recently yesterday from some energy industry lackey on NRP.

Unfortunately, "pollutant" describes a substance which is dirty or toxic, which CO2 isn't really. But that's not the point. The point is how much of it there is. Clean water is a wonderful substance and certainly not a pollutant, but if a levee bursts you quickly find out that you can have too much of a good thing.

Maybe we need a new category for substances which are not "pollutants" in themselves, but whose quantity of release nevertheless needs to be limited. Then maybe we could get past the semantics and sophistry employed by the forces of the status quo and their hired guns.

Contra the MSM, there is such a thing as credibility, and it can be damaged or destroyed.

Suffice it to say that neocons who, like the rest of humanity, can observe global warming and oil dependency as problems (Woolsey, Adelman) are not the best folks to solicit opinions from. This is beacuse they have been proven completely wrong on every policy issue for the last ten years.

And absurd parsing of words like "imminent," "gathering," "malevolent," and "malignant" are never going to advance the discussion.

there is such a thing as credibility, and it can be damaged or destroyed.

Unfortunately, destroyed credibility doesn't stop the likes of "ex-liberal," Nathan, Charlie and his verious sock puppets and their ilk from posting here.

Could someone remind me of what Al Gore did for 9 years as a US Senator and for 8 years as VP and one of the most powerful people in world to curb global warming?

Oh yea, not a whole lot. Are we really supposed to belive that this buffoon is going to do anything now other than make a few bucks off naive liberals? Give me break.

BlaBlaBla wrote: "Are we really supposed to belive that this buffoon is going to do anything now other than make a few bucks off naive liberals? "

Are we really supposed to believe that you are anything other than an ignorant dumbass dittohead whose politics has absolutely zero content except hatred of the one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes of "liberals" that are spoon-fed to you by your heroes Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

Yancey Ward: "The court is certain to decide that Congress will have to explicitly include carbon dioxide as a pollutant"

Wrong. There is no need for the law to explicitly include any specific "pollutant". The existing law is absolutely clear that the EPA has the authority to regulate any substance that is emitted into the ambient environment that is detrimental to public health, which is very clearly the case with CO2 emissions; moreover, the law does not state that the EPA "may" do so, but that it "shall" (i.e. must) do so.

The Bush administration is putting the interests of its ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in
the boardrooms of giant corporations ahead of the public's well-being, and ahead of its obligations under the law. It's as simple as that. But there's no reason to expect anything different from the Bush administration which is after all nothing but a gang of career corporate criminals masquerading as "conservative" politicians.

The only question is whether a Supreme Court that has been stacked with right-wing Republican partisan corporate bootlickers will enforce the law or whether the justices will once again violate their oaths of office and ignore the clear meaning and intent of the law for the benefit of their corporate masters.

I saw Woolsey speak at the national solar energy conference. While the theme of the entire conference was climate change mitigation, the theme of his talk was promotion of "plug-in" hybrid cars. His motivation was to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, mainly for national security reasons. Plug-in hybrids also purportedly decrease greenhouse gas concentrations, however in theory their adoption might increase the use of coal to generate electricity.

On the topic of SCOTUS, I am surprised that they are discussing the evidence about global warming. Maybe the Bush people have fallen into a trap. If they are really saying the only reason the EPA doesn't regulate CO2 emissions is that we don't know they are harmful, they should lose that argument, big time. The idea that we don't know if CO2 changes the climate is industry spin, unsupported by any facts.

I thought they would argue that CO2 is not a pollutant because there are no health effects from exposure to current or future ambient levels. That would be much more defensible.

Regardless of this case, CO2 emissions should be decreased by energy policy, not by environmental regulation.

Regardless of this case, CO2 emissions should be decreased by energy policy, not by environmental regulation.

Regulations to, say, mandate efficiency standards would be quite helpful to set a meaningful policy.

Best,

D

SecularAnimist,

Well, when the court hands down the decision next Spring, don't be surprised if I remind you that I told you so.

And absurd parsing of words like "imminent," "gathering," "malevolent," and "malignant" are never going to advance the discussion. Posted by: HeavyJ on November 29, 2006 at 12:32 PM

Weren't it was just those words what got us all into Iraq? Idn't the War on Terror one of those undefinable, no precident kinda wars? Bush is a proven advocate of fighting abstract themes, especially where there is a profit in it for him and his cronies. Carbon emmissions are an abstract theme that has no proven economic thrust (YET) But, please remember, Bush's ranch has solar power too. That is one little rich boy that looks both ways before crossing the road. That little rich boy butters his bread on the side that keeps the profits coming and the power from going.

SA:

Global warming is a cival engineering problem.

At most.

back to the point here: I'll bet $100 that there's no way in hell the conservatives in the Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) rule in favor of controlling emissions. Hell, Roberts was one of the top corporate lawyers in the country; he knows why he's on the court.

The Pentagon commissioned a study, published in 2004, about the potential national security implications of abrupt climate change. (It roughly follows the storyline of "The Day After.") You can find it below.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231

Scott,

The real point is that addressing climate change requires pretty significant changes in society, and it is an absolute requirement that these changes be addressed by the legislature, not the courts. As I wrote in my first comment, regardless of what the court decides the Congress will have the last say on the matter; and watching how people react to higher gasoline and electricity prices, it isn't hard to guess what the Congress's decision would be.

I saw Josh Marshall a couple of years ago on a panel discussion sitting alongside Richard Perle. Marshall treated the devil with respect.

Now Ms. Larson shows respect to an ex-CIA director who wants the US to kill as many Arabs as possible for his benefactor, Israel.

The Washington press corps, even the 'liberals,' are unable to recognize murderers and even show them deference for their knowledge and experience.

Next: Ms. Larson accepts Negroponte's rationalizations for roving death squads in Kansas and asks his opinion about hog farm pollution.

Yancey Ward wrote: "The real point is that addressing climate change requires pretty significant changes in society, and it is an absolute requirement that these changes be addressed by the legislature, not the courts."

Of course, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the legislature has in fact already addressed the issue of regulating CO2 emissions. No one is asking the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 emissions. The plaintiffs are arguing that the Congress has already given EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions and has indeed already required EPA to regulate emissions of any and all airborne substances that negatively impact human health, as CO2 clearly does as a consequence of the global warming it causes. The Supreme Court is simply being asked -- as it has been asked on numerous other occasions about numerous issues -- to rule on what the laws already passed by Congress actually require, which is entirely proper.

Yancey Ward: "... regardless of what the court decides the Congress will have the last say on the matter; and watching how people react to higher gasoline and electricity prices, it isn't hard to guess what the Congress's decision would be."

You may not have heard, but the Republicans no longer control the Congress. Inhofe, the bought-and-paid-for lying shill for the fossil fuel industry who proclaims that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and invites science fiction writers to testify about it before the Senate Environment Committee is no longer the head of that committee. Senator Barbara Boxer of California is going to be the head of that committee, and she has already stated that passing national GHG legislation modelled on the California law that was signed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a top priority.

Of course I don't know what Congress will actually do, but the days when it could be counted on to slavishly do the bidding of the ultra-rich campaign contributors of corrupt, bribe-taking bought-and-paid-for Republican gangster-politicians are over.

SecularAnimist,

If the Congress had known in 1970 that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels might be restricted in the future by their legislation, it is reasonable to believe that they would have explicitly exempted it at the time. The court could quite easily make the case on the basis of the intent of the legislation.

As for who controls Congress, it won't matter. Democrats are just as responsive to Americans' complaints about high energy prices as Republicans, and they will be sure not to take action that causes such prices to rise, as action against CO2 emissions will entail. This is simple political judgement.

Hostile wrote: "Next: Ms. Larson accepts Negroponte's rationalizations for roving death squads in Kansas and asks his opinion about hog farm pollution."

In fact, Woolsey is correct that anthropogenic global warming is a a major national security threat. This is true regardless of who says it, whether it is George W. Bush or Michael Moore or Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa.

Global warming is a far, far more serious "national security threat" than terrorism -- even nuclear terrorism.

And of course it is much worse than a "major national security threat." It is a threat to the survival of human civilization, and indeed to the survival of the human species, and in scenarios that are considerably short of the worst case scenario, it is a threat to the survival of the rich, diverse biosphere that has existed on this planet for millions of years. In the extreme worst case scenario, anthropogenic global warming could wipe out most of the life on Earth.

Yancey Ward wrote: "Democrats are just as responsive to Americans' complaints about high energy prices as Republicans, and they will be sure not to take action that causes such prices to rise, as action against CO2 emissions will entail."

Please explain how the California GHG legislation, which Senator Barbara Boxer and others have suggested is a model for national legislation, will "cause energy prices to rise."

For example, please explain how requiring manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient automobiles, and more energy-efficient appliances, and requiring builders to build more energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings, "causes energy prices to rise".

A couple of einstein quotes:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

SecularAnimist,

If your goal is to stop CO2 from increasing, then the initiatives you are discussing are not going to do it. Every increase in efficiency simply frees up the energy previously wasted for productive uses, and we always find new uses for energy. I am not against increasing efficiency, but it will not solve, or even address in a fundamental way, the problem you and others are worried about. For example, if autos became twice as efficient, it is not unreasonable to expect that use of automobiles would increase worldwide by a significant amount, thus counteracting much of the decrease in gasoline use you are attempting to cause.

Stopping CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere will require raising the relative cost of fossil fuels vs the non-CO2 emitting fuels and energy production systems. There is simply no way around this.

A couple more:

"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue."

"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions."

"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

The faster you go, the shorter you are.

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Okay, I think I'm finished now.

The Pentagon commissioned a study, published in 2004, about the potential national security implications of abrupt climate change. (It roughly follows the storyline of "The Day After.") You can find it below.

Exacly, GW as a national security threat is a joke. (Of course, in DoD, we'd be more than happy to spend any GW appropriations your congressmen are willing to give us).

Last week's New Yorker Magazine had a troubling article describing the amount of carbon dioxide already released into the atmosphere will saturate the oceans and change their ph to acidic, killing almost all sea life as we know it. I think it is already too late to save most of the life on earth, but I do think we should try to save it and ourselves. Very hard.

I do not think a murderer like Woolsey, even if he also recognizes the problem, has any more expertise on how to solve the problem than Charles Manson. Actually, I would trust Charlie more, but perhaps the captains of industry will listen to their hit man and heed his warning.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 让泪化作相思雨 花的嫁纱 简单爱 愿望 童话 放生 qq爱 心雨 老婆老婆我爱你 那一夜 真爱 好姑娘 笔记 爱的天国 我很想爱他 第一次爱的人 就是爱你 我会好好的 真的爱你 桃花朵朵开 天涯 大海 过火 爱如空气 北京一夜 独唱情歌 面具 想起 完美世界 世界末日 太早 我们的歌 花田错 红颜 飘雪 霍元甲 认真的雪 珊瑚海 不想长大 借口 追梦人 私奔 暧昧

"No one is trying to create global warming; it is not something anyone is planning. In that sense, it is a malignant threat, not a malevolent threat."

Not true. It is indeed malevolent in the same sense that tobacco companies using propaganda to prop up the lie of "safe cigarettes" is. They have to deceive people into poisoning themselves to assure their own profit.

Since the impact of CO2 is not agreed by all, I would prefer the legislature pass laws specifically regulating it, rather than have the Supremes make a scientific finding that CO2 causes global warming. Science isn't the court's job, nor is their experise. Supreme Court justices don't have Science Advisors.

If we want to control CO2, that decision should be conciously made Congress. I don't like a huge decision resting on the Court determining that Congress meant something that they didn't know they meant when they passed an earlier law.

BTW Pres Clinton didn't even bother to bring Kyoto up for a Senate vote. He knew it would lose. The Senate did vote 99-1 in support of a resolution disagreeing with Kyoto. I don't know if the present Congress is more likely to support CO2 controls.

The power to arbitrarily CO2 emissions is a lot like an arbitrary power to control the lifestyle of ordinary working class Americans in ways that really matter to them. Of course the elites say there is a real and imminent danger and they need absolute power RIGHT NOW to prevent catastrophe. Tyrants always claim something like that.

Russian and Chinese scientists seem to be pooh-poohing the hysteria over alleged anthropogenic global warming. For one thing, the climate modelers don't even seem to be able to get their alleged consequences right. Gore was in Seattle a year ago to tell us that we here are in for heat and drought. We just had a record wet November and it was cool. Others say Russia and Ukraine are in for drought that will destroy their breadbasket areas, but soil moisture there has never been higher. The great "warming will cause an ice age" theory, which is a class hedging of one's bet, looks unlikely as the thermohaline current apparently is not slowing at all.

Personally, I want to wait ten years to decide if there is anything going on except normal climate cycling (which can be wildly abrupt and extreme with man not present at all.) The Supreme Court ought to wait as well.

Two concerns:

1. Raising the price of energy will always hurt the poorest amoung us the most.

2. It is dangerous for the Court to give the government the power to regulate any gas expelled by breathing.

"No one is trying to create global warming; it is not something anyone is planning. In that sense, it is a malignant threat, not a malevolent threat."

Good of Joe to be the first to quote the most useful remark from Woolsey. It's true...no one is TRYING to create GW. We're all doing it without trying. We gotta be reminded of that, we gotta be informed how to stop, we gotta be shown our increasing health, wealth and creativity as we decrease greenhouse emissions. We gotta lean on ourselves and all of our 'suppliers'...the govmint will follow.